An Essay Featured In (Re)constructing “A is A” by O.G. Rose
The Logic and Ontology of “ ‘A/(A-isn’t-A)’ is ‘A/(A-isn’t-A)’ (without B)”
Part One: A
I
1. A is A.
2. A is A is A is A is A is A…ad infinitum…
3. A is A.
4. A.
5. A, A, A, A…eternal regression…
6. While “A is A” ad infinitum, A eternally regresses.
7. Hence, “A is A” signifies “ ‘eternal regression’ is ‘eternal regression’ ad infinitum.”
Example:
“A cup” is “a cup.”
“A cup” is “a cup” is “a cup” is “a cup” is “a cup”…
“A cup” is “a cup.”
“A cup.”
“A cup,” “a cup,”, “a cup,” “a cup”…
“ ‘A cup’, ‘a cup’, ‘a cup’, ‘a cup’…” is “ ‘a cup’, ‘a cup’, ‘a cup’, ‘a cup’…” is “ ‘a cup’, ‘a cup’, ‘a cup’, ‘a cup’…” is…
II
1. A eternally regresses; hence, A is “toward” nothing, which will be signified with “A/nothing.”
2. A/nothing (not “A is nothing,” but “A/nothing”); technically, there is no such thing as A or nothing, only A/nothing, so all uses of the terms “A” or “nothing” must signify, in some manner, “A/nothing” (the word “nothing” primarily signifies an orientation).
3. Yet, by definition, nothing isn’t a thing. Therefore, for A/nothing to be the case, “nothing” must signify “a directionality of A” versus “a state of A.”
4. “A/nothing” signifies “A-toward-nothing”; technically, the terms “A/nothing,” “A,” and “nothing” all signify, in some manner, “A-toward-nothing.”
5. At nothing, since nothing isn’t a thing, A-isn’t-A.
6. Yet, since A never reaches nothing (for there is nothing to reach), but rather is always “toward” it, A-isn’t-A is never the case. Still, A is always “toward” A-isn’t-A (as if A-isn’t-A could be the case).
7. A is (always) A/nothing.
8. The term “nothing” suggests “A-isn’t-A,” because that which isn’t itself is that which is nothing. Considering that “A” signifies any given thing and all given things simultaneously, this “nothing” signifies “any nothingness and/or all nothingness as one.”
9. Therefore, “A/nothing” signifies “A/(A-isn’t-A)”; technically, there is no such thing as A or A-isn’t-A (as “stand alones”), only A/(A-isn’t-A), so the terms “A” or “A-isn’t-A” must always signify “A/(A-isn’t-A)” (even if not so clearly designated).
10. Hence, technically, “A is A” signifies “ ‘A/(A-isn’t-A)’ is ‘A/(A-isn’t-A)’ ” ad infinitum.
.
.
Part Two: B
I
1. B is B.
2. B is B is B is B…ad infinitum…
3. B.
4. B, B, B, B…eternal regression…
5. Hence, B is “like A/(A-isn’t-A).”
II
1. Is the proposed B equivalent to A? If not, what makes B distinct? If B isn’t distinct, B is an unnecessary consideration.
2. If B is distinct, B is B, rather than B/(B-isn’t-B). Considering this, the term “B” is more accurate than “B/(B-is-B)” or “B/B,” for a thing doesn’t “is,” per se, but instead just “is.” In other words, a thing isn’t so much “toward” its own “is-ness” as it “is” its own “is-ness.”
3. If B is distinct from A, “B is B” while “ ‘A/(A-isn’t-A)’ is ‘A/(A-isn’t-A).’ ”
4. If B is distinct from A, “ ‘A/(A-isn’t-A)’ is ‘A/(A-isn’t-A)’ (without B).”
5. If B isn’t distinct from A, A/(A-isn’t-A) is still without that-which-is-distinct-from-A.
6. Hence, “A is A” signifies “ ‘A/(A-isn’t-A)’ is ‘A/(A-isn’t-A)’ (without B).”
III
1. If B is distinct, B Transcends A. In other words, since “A” signifies “any and all phenomena in reality,” “B,” if meaningful, must signify “That which isn’t real” (note the capitalized “That”). Hence, A is real, while B Exists. In other words, B “Is” while A “is.”
2. If B isn’t distinct from A, the addition of the expression “without B” is unnecessary even if somewhat valid. How can it be determined if B is necessary? By determining if B Exists.
3. If B Exists, “B Is (B)” while “A is (A/(A-isn’t-A)).”
4. Relative to each entity in the world, each entity is a “A-unto-A,” per se, while relative to humans, each entity in the world is a “A/(A-isn’t-A).” The experience of A-unto-A is hence Transcendent of humans.
5. “B” signifies “A-unto-A.”
6. “B Is (A-unto-A)” while “A is (A/(A-isn’t-A)).”
7. “B Is B” signifies “A-unto-A Is A-unto-A.”
8. Hence, the question of B’s knowability aside, B Exists, for B Is “the-world-unto-the-world.”
.
.
Part Three: A/(Idea-of-A)
I
1. The term “(A-isn’t-A)” can signify the term “(idea-of-A).” Hence, the term “A/(A-isn’t-A),” which signifies “A/nothing,” can also signify “A/(idea-of-A).”
2. The terms “A/nothing” and “A-toward-nothing” signify “A-toward-idea-of-A” (keep in mind that there is no such thing as nothing).
3. A eternally regresses because a human thinks about A: to think about A is for a human to translate A into an idea-of-A, and so to render A into “A-toward-idea-of-A-ness” (or “A/(idea-of-A)-ness”). If humans didn’t think, A wouldn’t eternally regress; rather, A would only “ad infinitum.”
4. Relative to A-unto-A, an idea-of-A is nothing (for ideas aren’t real relative to A-unto-A, though that doesn’t mean ideas aren’t real unto themselves or overall). For a human to think about A (a given thing) is for a human to make A “toward” what-unto-A-is-nothing — it is to make A “toward” an idea-of-A — it is to make A/nothing.
5. To think about A is to make A “mean”: the act of thinking is the act of (giving and/or realizing) “meaning.” Thinking, in the act, synthesizes the dimension “A, A, A…eternal regression…” with “A is A is A is A…ad infinitum…” In a sense, A would be infinite if humans didn’t think about A into finitude and “toward” nothing (but A would also be meaningless, a meaningless infinity).
6. “Meaning” is what makes the world “mean” and/or “toward” nothing. In a sense, “toward-ness” and “meaning” are identical.
7. It is the realization that the world “means” nothing that “(existentially) angsts” humans “toward” B versus “toward” nothing; yet it is ironically the act of thinking and making the world “mean” that makes it “mean nothing.” Humans “are/cause” the existential angst humans seek to Transcend.
8. The human is the source of his or “meaninglessness,” yet the human who doesn’t think is practically inhuman.
II
1. The “meaning” of a thing is an idea of that thing. To make A “mean” is to make A “toward” an idea-of-A. In Platonic terms, to make A “mean” is to make A “toward” the form-of-A. Form arises with thought.
2. “The meaning of A” is “the-idea-of-A-toward-A” when A is made to “mean.” In other words, the “form-of-A” is “the-idea-of-A-toward-A” when A is made to “mean.”
3. A “means” whatever idea is conceived in/while thinking about A. This being the case, a given cup can “mean” “cup/idea-of-cup(/grandmother’s-favorite/I-need-to-drink-tea/etc.)” for a moment and then “mean” “my cup” the next.
4. Relative to A, the idea-of-A is nothing. For a human to think about A is for a human to make A/nothing. Yet, there is no such thing as nothing, by definition, so “nothing” signifies a “toward-idea-of-ness.”
5. Since “nothing” signifies “a directionality,” to try to find what A “means” is to make A “toward.” In such a case, A is automatically “toward” an idea-of-A, for to make A “mean” is to make A “mean” an idea (of itself) (whether this idea is right, and by what standard, are different matters). Ironically, to make A “mean” is to make A nothing (relative to A).
6. The term “A,” versus “B,” signifies “that-which-is-made-to-mean.” “A is A,” hence, signifies “ ‘A-toward-idea-of-A’ is ‘A-toward-idea-of-A.’ ” There is no A that isn’t “toward” an idea-of-A. A thing that isn’t “toward” an idea-of-itself isn’t an A, but a B.
.
.
Part Four: “ ‘A/(Idea-of-A)’ is ‘A/(Idea-of-A)’ (Without B)”
I
1. Without B, A “isn’t”: without the-world-unto-the-world (B), there cannot be the-world-unto-the-idea-of-the-world (B in relation to A).
2. Yet A “is” (without B), because of what A “isn’t” (B).
3. Therefore, “A is (A)” because “B Is (B).” If “B Isn’t,” “A isn’t.” If A wasn’t “without B” because “B Wasn’t,” A wouldn’t be “without B” because A wouldn’t “be” (and so there wouldn’t be anything to “be” without anything). Rather, A is “without B” because B Exists.
4. Relative to the world, each given thing is a B, while each thing is an A relative to humans. If there was no world-unto-the-world, there couldn’t be humans-“toward”-the-world’ who beget the-world-unto-the-idea-of-the-world.
5. “The-idea-of-a-thing-in-the-world is the-idea-of-a-thing-in-the-world” as “ ‘a thing’ is ‘a thing’ (unto itself).” However, “the-idea-of-a-thing” isn’t “a/its thing,” and it is a consequence of this dissonance that a distinction between A and B is necessary.
6. “A” signifies “a thing with ‘the-idea-of-the-thing’ ‘laid over it’ or ‘pressed down upon it,’ ” while “B” signifies both “a pure phenomenon” and/or “a pure idea.”
7. A/(A-isn’t-A) arises because the B of pure idea (idea-unto-idea) isn’t the B of pure phenomenon (world-unto-world). Keep in mind that when there is no thinking, there is no A, only B (of pure phenomenon, for the B of pure idea is gone).
8. Pure phenomenon and pure idea do not contradict unto themselves, while phenomena-to-humans are contradictions. “B Is (B)” only in thought-unto-thought or in the world-unto-world, but not in thinking-unto-world.
9. Humans think into being the B of pure idea and “marry it” to the B of pure phenomena, begetting A (A/nothing). The human is the dissonance, yet there would be no B of pure idea without the human.
10. Pure idea is (a) B: “idea-of-a-thing is idea-of-a-thing” as “a thing is a thing.” It is impossible for a person to know “a thing as a thing” (though a thing may be perceived as such), only to know “a thing as a thing/(idea-of-thing).” Hence, humans think “ ‘a thing’ is ‘a thing/(idea-of-thing),’ ” when “ ‘a thing’ is (only) ‘a thing.’ ” Humans think abstractly.
11. Consequently, Aristotle’s principle of “A is A” doesn’t hold when a person thinks about a thing in the world. In such an instance, though “A is A” is true because B Exists, “ ‘A/(idea-of-A)’ is ‘A/(idea-of-A)’ (without B)” is the complete case.
.
.
Part Five: Ontological and Transcendental Considerations
I
1. Relative to B, A Is Transcendent; relative to A, B Is Transcendent.
2. Humans Are Transcendent of the world-unto-the-world, as the World-Unto-The-World Is Transcendent of humans. Relative to humans, humans are Not-Transcendent; relative to the world, the world is Not-Transcendent, as God Is Not-Transcendent to God, but rather “Is.” Transcendence is relative.
3. Objectivity Transcends subjectivity-unto-subjectivity. Subjectivity Transcends objectivity-unto-objectivity. A Transcends B as B Transcends A, yet neither Transcends Itself/itself.
4. “Transcendence” signifies “Being other than (a) being” or “Being of being.”
II
1. A given phenomenon, represented by A2, is “like B” to A1 until A2 is realized as A2 (which is what A2 always was/is despite seeming otherwise). For example, a given person is always “like B” to another given person, for a given person is “Transcendent-like” of another. Similarly, a given moment of a person’s life five minutes from now is “like B” to that individual until that moment is realized. (Transcendence surrounds us.)
2. Relative to A1, A2 is “like B,” but ultimately, A2 is “unveiled,” per se, as A if “A2 is A2” (if “A(x) is A(x)” and/or “A is A”).
3. B cannot ultimately be A2 (relative to A1), even though A2 is “like B” to A1 (for A2, relative to A1, is that-which-A1-is-“without”). Relative to A1, any A not A1 is “like B.”
4. A1 is “without A2” until A2 is realized (in spacetime) by A1. Relative to the moment before A2 is realized, A2 is (like) B to A1.
5. Ultimately though (perhaps at A∞), A2 is realized as A instead of B.
6. Thus, A2 (as with any given A that a given A is “without”) is “temporarily Transcendent” of A1 (and so ultimately only “transcendent” versus “Transcendent,” per se).
III
1. Since the world-unto-the-world is a B like ideas-unto-ideas, the world-unto-the-world is “like” the world-inside-a-human’s-head (unto that world’s self). This is why it is possible for a human to interact with the world. However, this isn’t because ideas are actualities, but because ideas are like actualities.
2. Ideas resemble actualities though aren’t equivalent. When I think about a unicorn, the unicorn is “like” a horse; when I think about a space colony, the idea is “like” a normal colony plus a spaceship. When I think about a wizard, the idea is “like” a human and “like” most phenomena in the world insomuch as it is dimensional and temporal. Though no idea is an actuality (in the same way that no object is the object next to it), no idea isn’t “like” one (to some degree). It is perhaps because ideas are a consequence of humans in the world that ideas are “like” the world. Without humans, ideas wouldn’t be “like” the world (mostly because there wouldn’t be ideas).
3. Ideas are analogous. The relation between “two cups” and “2” is the similar to the relation between a given phenomenon and the thought of that phenomenon. “2 is 2” resembles “two (objects) is two (objects),” but “2 isn’t two” (abstraction isn’t sensual experience); rather, “2 is like two.” Likewise, “idea-of-a-cup is idea-of-a-cup” as “a cup is a cup,” but “idea-of-a-cup isn’t cup”; rather, “idea-of-a-cup is like a cup.”
4. Ideas-unto-ideas and things-unto-things “=” unto themselves, per se, but phenomena-unto-beings “is/means” (“B =,” while “A is/means”). “A = A” (insomuch as it signifies “B”) is true relative to ideas-unto-ideas and things-unto-things, but not things-unto-thinkers. This is because, relative to B, there is no separation between an experience of “is-ness/meaning” and an experience of is-ness, while there is such a separation with A.
5. Technically, relative to A (and thought), there is no such thing as “is-ness” or “meaning,” only “is-ness/meaning.” Therefore, to say “A is A” is to say “A is/means A,” while to say “B Is B” is to say “B = B.” All uses of “B Is B,” hence, can be assumed to signify “B = B” (or italicized “is-ness,” which I’ve used in this work sparingly).
6. “What is A?” is a bad question, therefore, or at least incomplete. “What is/means A?” is better. To determine “what A is/means A,” can we determine what “A is,” what “A means,” and then put the two answers we find together? No, for to ask, “What is A?” is to ask a bad question, for the question cannot be answered apart from “What does A mean?” We must only ask “What is/means A?” One can ask, “What is A?” only insomuch as that expression signifies “What is/means A?”
7. If I ask, “What is that book?” I have asked a bad question; I must rather ask “What is/means that book?” How would we answer? If someone tries to tell me what the book “is” (unto itself), the individual will fail (for the individual will be thinking in doing so and isn’t the book). If the individual tries to tell me what the book means and goes about describing the symbolism of Moby Dick, the individual will again fail. If the individual, on the other hand, tells me “It’s Moby Dick,” the individual better succeeds, for that is what the book “is” (to him) (ergo: “is/means”) (note though that this answer will likely still be vague to me, even if it is “right”). Wouldn’t the individual have answered in this way had I just asked, “What book is that?” Yes, and arguably it is more likely I would have received “the right answer” by asking “the wrong question” (“What book is that?”) then by asking the technically correct question (“What is/means that book?”), for the technical question is seemingly absurd (absurdity can be the price of accuracy). In fact, asking the right question almost certainly means the person will answer incorrectly. Communication is miscommunication.
IV
1. “A is A,” “A means ‘A-isn’t-A,’ ” and “A is/means ‘A/(A-isn’t-A),’ ” with the last expression being (technically) the only valid one.
2. “A” signifies “A-being-(A-isn’t-A)” (to a given observer and/or thinker). “Being” is the “/” between “is-ness/meaning,” per se; being is the “toward-ness” of A. Being is what a thing “reveals itself” to an observer “as” (via thinking), per se. For example, when I think about “a cup” as “my cup,” I am making “a cup” be “my cup” (to me). The being of “the cup” then, is “my cup,” and in the act of thinking “my cup,” “the cup” also has Being of the-cup-unto-the-cup. Being arises with being(s) (in thought).
3. As I do not experience myself as having Being (though I do have such relative to another), so the-cup-unto-the-cup doesn’t experience itself as having Being — it just is. Being (and thereby being) arises in “the space between” beings-unto-beings, between a given moment of a being and another given moment of that being, and between the thoughts of a being, itself, and others.
4. If “I wasn’t,” the cup would just have being unto itself (and so lack the concept of “being”). The difference between being and Being arises due to experience (with the latter term being necessary when there is Transcendence, such as there always is in the act of thinking). Keep in mind that the lowercase term “being” doesn’t necessarily imply some hierarchical “less-ness,” just a difference of experience.
5. Being, unto itself, doesn’t “=,” per se. That which “=” doesn’t have being, but rather simply is. Only that which “is/means” (technically) has being (and so Being).
6. Whenever being reveals, so Being hides. When being hides, so Being Exists.
7. Being arises where arises nothing (in the “space between”). If there was no being, only is-ness, there would be no nothing. Since nothing isn’t a-thing-unto-itself, all uses of the term “nothing” must actually signify something regarding “Being” or “being” (in some way). Therefore, when a given thing has a directionality “toward” nothing, the entity must actually be engaged in a-revealing-of (Being/being).
V
1. Since “A” signifies “A/(A-isn’t-A),” “A” signifies “A-toward-nothing.”
2. Since “B” signifies “A-unto-A,” “B” signifies “A-unto-itself” or simply “A-is-ness” (considering that “A-unto-A” signifies just “B”).
3. “A is A,” hence, in sum, signifies “A-toward-nothing is A-toward-nothing (without A-unto-A).”
4. Therefore, “A” signifies “a being without is-ness.” To the degree a given A recognizes the A is “without is-ness” is to the degree perhaps a given A can strive to be “toward” is-ness. To do so is to be “toward” Transcendence, which is seemingly what every A needs, considering that each self-negates.
5. All need Transcendence from negation, but not all recognize this need. Those who don’t are perhaps in despair, for they do not recognize they are in despair (to allude to Kierkegaard). At the same time, if Transcendence is realized, it ceases to provide a useful function for A, but if Transcendence cannot be realized, A is a strange tension, for an unreachable Transcendence can cause anxiety. To not self-negate, the unreachable is needed (but the effectiveness of “the unreachable” is perhaps paradoxically relative to the degree it is not “seriously” considered unreachable).
VI
1. “A” signifies “A-being-nothing,” while “B” signifies “A-Being.”
2. A cannot be-nothing unless there is a B (A-unto-A) that A is “without.”
3. “A” signifies “A-being-idea-of-A” as “B” signifies “A-Being.”
4. As “A” is “being-nothing,” B Exists.
5. When one thinks “A is A,” A is “being-nothing,” and so B Exists.
6. Consequently, “A is A” always signifies “A-being-nothing is A-being-nothing (without A-Being)” (since “A is A” is always “in thought”). In other words, “A is A” always signifies “A-being-(A-isn’t-A) is A-being-(A-isn’t-A) (without A-Being).”
.
.
Part Six: Overview
In conclusion, in me personally believing logic and ontology are indivisible, “A is A” means:
Logic:
“ ‘A/(A-isn’t-A)’ is ‘A/(A-isn’t-A)’ (without B)”
Ontology:
“A-being-(A-isn’t-A) is A-being-(A-isn’t-A) (without A-Being).”
As will be expounded on, this is why irony, paradox, and contradiction are possible.
.
.
.
Additions
Part One: A
1. To observe “a thing” is to see (an) “(that thing) is (that thing),” which is to see “(that thing) is (that thing) is (that thing)…ad infinitum…” In other words, to see “that thing” is to see “(an) infinity.”
2. A reason we perhaps like things that make no sense (perhaps like many YouTube videos) is because “A is A” suggests “contradiction,” so what is (subconsciously) more real to us is that which is funny or ironic (see Kierkegaard) since, as C.S. Lewis put it, to find something funny is to encounter the way of the world (as is to be horrified).
3. The capitalized term “Nothing” (versus “nothing”) is self-contradictory. While the term “nothing” signifies “something/nothing,” the term “Nothing” signifies “nothing as a thing-in-itself,” versus “a relation or directionality of (a) thing(s).” By definition, Nothing Isn’t.
4. Depending on the context, “/” signifies “toward-ness” (and maybe, simultaneously, “interchangeability”).
5. In a sense, the more people think about things, the more things are “toward” nothing. For example, if I think about a cup and what constitutes it, I will think about the porcelain that makes the cup, then I will think about the paint that is on the cup, then what makes up the porcelain, then the particles that make up the porcelain — reducing the cup into smaller and smaller parts (“toward” nothing, yet never reaching (what isn’t)).
Part Two: B
1. Nothing Doesn’t Exist (by definition), but nothing is real (in relation to things). The reality of nothing is derived in “the space between” A1 and “A1 ≠ A(x)” and/or between A and B. It is “between scopes,” per se, because nothing isn’t a thing-in-itself. In many respects, the reality of nothing, real to A, is what makes A itself and B distinct from A. The directionality or orientation of A “toward” B is a(n) (paradoxical) overcoming of nothing (and/or contradiction) oriented by B (non-contradiction). A is a “non-contradiction,” per se, to the degree that it is “toward” B, and a “contradiction” to the degree that it is “toward” A. In other words, A is a thing (unto itself) to the degree it is “toward” B (or “toward” itself-as-a-thing-in-itself), and so perhaps the more “toward” B a given thing, the less it undergoes alienation.
2. To address identity, meaning, reference, and signification: “a thing” is “that thing” insomuch as it is “without (That/that)-which-that-thing-isn’t.” For example, A1 is A1 insomuch as A1 is “without ‘A(x) ≠ A1’ ” and “without B.” Therefore, “a thing” is identified/named/referred (to) insomuch as a given observer identifies/names/refers (to) That/that which “that thing” is “without.” Thus, it is impossible to identify/name/refer (to) a given thing (for a given, finite observer cannot possibly signify/conceptualize/etc. all phenomena which a given thing is “without”) — only approximation is possible. Identification/naming/reference, to be accurate and truly possible, requires there be nothing that a given thing is “without” (which is impossible in the context of the world). Relative to a-thing-unto-a-thing (B), a thing is “without nothing,” for it “is” all there “is” (in that context). Therefore, the best way to identify/name/refer (to) a given thing (like A1) is relative to B, rather than relative to (a) different A(s). A given person, in this regard, to overcome alienation, should also identify his or her self “relative to B.”
3. Let us consider a hypothetical C: if “C’ signifies ‘C/(C-isn’t-C),” “C” signifies “A.” If “C” signifies “C-unto-C,” “C” signifies “B.” If “C” signifies “(C-isn’t-C)/(C-isn’t-C),” “C” signifies “an-idea-that-isn’t” or “a-thing-unto-itself-that-isn’t-unto-itself,” which is a Contradiction (and/or Nothingness) and an impossibility. Thus, C is an unneeded complexity, as are all permutations or terms other than “A” and “B.”
4. To avoid confusion, the rest of this paper will primarily use the term “B-unto-B” rather than “A-unto-A” (in regard to “B Is…”), seeing that the terms are ontologically interchangeable. Since “B” signifies “B-unto-B,” the term “B” can be used rather than “B-unto-B” without error, while the term “A” cannot be flawlessly interchanged with the term “A/(A-isn’t-A).” While is-ness and “is-ness/meaning” are one in B, they aren’t in A (human experience). That said, anytime the term “A” is used, understand the term is used to signify “A/(idea-of-A),” even if it isn’t written as such (which might sometimes be done to avoid confusion).
Part Three: A/(Idea-of-A)
None.
Part Four: “ ‘A/(Idea-of-A)’ is ‘A/(Idea-of-A)’ (Without B)”
1. When a person says, “A is A” (to signify “B”), quoting Aristotle, that individual engages in thought, and relative to pure thought, the principle holds, as it holds relative to the world-unto-the-world. However, the principle doesn’t hold relative to thinking-unto-world (yet one probably says “A is A” in order to, ironically, determine how to thoughtfully engage with the world). Keep in mind that though “A is A” doesn’t hold for thinking-unto-the-world, it does hold in regard to perception-unto-the-world (in line with “On Thinking and Perceiving” by O.G. Rose).
2. The idea-of-a-thing is caused by a thing, but an idea-of-a-thing isn’t a thing. An idea is its “own thing,” per se, as a child is his or her own person despite being conceived by his or her parents. If I think “cup over there” while looking at “cup here,” and I move “cup here” “over there,” “cup over there” isn’t the same as “cup over there now.” Each idea is its own thing, as each scene in a movie is its own thing, and each idea of a given scene is distinct from the given scenes which the ideas are of. By running together, they seem to be one (and in a way are) yet remain distinct.
3. There is no such thing as subjectivity without objectivity or vice-versa (for then objectivity simply is, and it would be meaningless to call it “objective”). Therefore, unto humans, as a thing “is/means,” so a thing “objective/subjective-ifies.” Keep in mind that “subjectivity” seems to always refer to an “experience of object-ivity,” while an “experience of objectivity by objectivity” is simply is-ness.
4. “A” always implies directionality, for “A” always implies (a) “B-toward-a-different-B” or “B-laid-over-B,” while “B” doesn’t signify directionality, being rather the “end” of A.
5. Nothing is a contradiction unto itself, but everything is nothing to everything else (when conceived). To think about a thing is to make it a contradiction, to hurl it “toward” nothing.
6. Though there is no “thing” in the world (the term is more like a placeholder that, if meaningful, signifies a human “toward-ness” to an unfamiliar actuality), the term is used in this paper to signify “a(ny) given actuality.”
7. As there is “no thing” in the world, per se, there is “nothing” in the world when a thing is thought about. Thinking gives nothing (an appearance of, semi-) being.
8. To conceptualize an is-ness is to layer it with “meaning,” begetting a new ontology of “is-ness/meaning.” To think is to mean, so to think is to engage with (and beget) this ontology. Even if people are aware of this and desire to escape this ontological dilemma, if they do so through thinking, they run in deeper.
9. “A is A” is always engaged by thought, and so practically always “ ‘A/(Idea-of-A)’ is ‘A/(Idea-of-A)’ (without B).” This is because there are no syllogisms in nature or experience: they are instead “models” humans conceive by which to organize reality. Thus, if we use “A is A,” we must be thinking, and so to only use “A is A” as Aristotle meant it is to organize reality incompletely. Thought divides A into “being itself” (B) and “not being itself” (“A isn’t A”) simultaneously, in tension. Again, when there is no thinking, there is no A, only B (of pure phenomenon, for the B of pure idea is gone).
Part Five: “A-being-(A-isn’t-A) is A-being-(A-isn’t-A) (without A-Being)”
1. God has being unto God, but that being is (always) Being unto us (and all else). In order to avoid confusion, when used in regard to God or things-unto-themselves, it can be better to use the term “Being” consistently (seeing that a given reader of a document will always have some Being in relation to him or her, seeing that he or she has being (or finitude) by virtue of reading finite works).
2. Mislabeling “Being/being” as “nothing” can risk alienation, but the distinction can entail phenomenological relevance.
3. A being is always undergoing (temporary) transcendence (and so “toward” Being).
4. The word “nothing” is ultimately a pure word — it refers only to itself (in use).
5. The terms “Being” and “being” can suggest how a phenomenon “reveals” itself, per se, or it can be used in regard to the is-ness or Is-ness of a thing. Though this paper has made a distinction between “is-ness” and “being,” other papers may not do so. “Being” is a term that can be used as a noun, a verb, or a noun/verb (thus its history of confusion). “Being” can be used in regard to “the action of revealing” (which can be “toward-ness”), the is-ness of a thing, or the is-ness of a thing as it “reveals” itself to others.
5.1 Furthermore, considering that is-ness is Transcendent, one can usually use the term “Is-ness” interchangeably, as one could use the term “Being” (as distinct from “Being/being” as “hiding/revealing”), as long as a distinction is drawn between the terms “Being,” “Being/being,” and “being.” However, the term “is-ness” shouldn’t necessarily always be capitalized, but it can be when the term “is-ness” is used in regard to an entity it Transcends (such as that with “is-ness”), though doesn’t have to be. Though “is-ness” and “Is-ness” are usually interchangeable, the term “is-ness” shouldn’t be capitalized when referring “relative to is-ness,” for is-ness doesn’t Transcend itself.
5.2 The terms “Existence,” “Exist,” and “Exists” can be interchanged with corresponding terms of “Is,” assuming the terms are capitalized. It is not necessarily the case the lowercase terms “existence,” “exist,” etc. are interchangeable with “Existence,” “Exist,” etc.
5.3 The term “Is” is usually interchangeable with the term “Is,” as “Is-ness” is usually interchangeable with “Is-ness,” but not when in regard to the question of what “Ultimately Transcends A” versus only “temporarily transcends A” (relative to B). “Is” implies what “may Ultimately Transcend,” while “Is” implies what “does Ultimately Transcend.” This distinction is rarely necessary to make.
5.4 The need for all these interchangeable terms is due to the limits of language and for emphasize on certain points at certain times. Please forgive the confusion.
6. Since A “is/means,” there is a sense in which it is absurd to say “there is no meaning,” for this must signify “there is no ‘is-ness/meaning.’ ” However, in a sense, there is no “meaning,” for there is only, technically, “is-ness/meaning.” Furthermore, to engage with Existentialism, it is also absurd to ask “Does essence precede existence or vice-versa?” for there is only “essence/existence,” per se.
7. Schrödinger’s Cat in mind, “A is A” cannot be meaningfully isolated from “ ‘ A-isn’t-A’ is ‘A-isn’t-A’ (without B)” (One/Zero). The Law of Non-Contradiction entails incompleteness, and thus, in practice, irony.
8. If “A1” signifies “cup on table” and “A2” signifies “same cup next to sink,” A2 is nothing relative to A1. However, if a person picks up the cup on the table to put it next to the sink, the individual makes A1 “toward” A2, which is “like B” until the cup is put next to the sink and A2 is realized as A2. Up to the very instance in which A2 is realized as A2, A1 is “toward” what is nothing relative to A1. Ultimately, this is the perpetual relation between A and B (versus what is only “like B”). A is always “toward” B, and so always “toward” what is nothing relative to A (though B isn’t nothing unto itself).
9. The reason “a thing” “means” nothing (unto itself) is because “meaning” is self-contained within a human. Though “a thing” always “means” an-idea-of-that-thing (to a person), “a thing” means nothing to itself, for it just is to itself — its being “reveals” itself to itself as what it is. Nothing happens, so there’s (only) nothing it can mean. However, a given thing doesn’t experience itself as meaning nothing, for it doesn’t think; only a given human can think, ironically, this way about his or her self. Yet a person who thinks “I mean nothing” has given his or her self meaning, for that person has established “I am” in saying “I mean (nothing)” (keep in mind there is also no such thing as “nothing,” so to “mean nothing” is to “mean something else”). The last term in the sentence makes the speaker miss the implication of the first: to say “I am” is to say “I mean” (things into “is/mean-ness”), so it cannot be the case that a person means nothing; if a person is, a person means (things) (into ideas-of-those-things). “I mean nothing” is a valid expression only when used to signify “I mean entities ‘toward’ ideas (of themselves).”
10. In early works, I used the expression “A = A” to signify “A is A.” I also concluded that “A = A” means “(A ≠ A ) = (A ≠ A)” and is ultimately “without B.” Though the expression “A = A” can still hold insomuch as it is held in mind simultaneous with “(A ≠ A ) = (A ≠ A),” I found that terms like “(A ≠ A ) = (A ≠ A)” did not quite work. For one, the function of “=” was never clear, and also the technical way to write “ ‘(A ≠ A) = (A ≠ A)’ (without B)” is as “ ‘A/(A ≠ A )’ = ‘A/(A ≠ A)’ (without B),” for though “is-ness” is “meaning,” a thing still is (unto itself) “under,” per se, the “is-ness(/meaning)” given to it by humans. The expression “ ‘(A ≠ A) = (A ≠ A)’ (without B)’ ” is technically right relative to logic and thought (insomuch as “A ≠ A” is regarded as the meaning of A), but it doesn’t quiet hold in sum as does the more technical expressions.
11. If the term “A” is used to signify “A/(A-isn’t-A),” “A is A” is a valid expression (as is even “A = A” if the “=” signifies “is/means,” but I fear it rarely does).
12. “(A = A) without B” is a simple term that could signify the difficult “ ‘A/(A-isn’t-A)’ is ‘A/(A-isn’t-A)’ (without B),” ( as could “ ‘(A ≠ A) = (A ≠ A)’ (without B).” Likewise, though not technically right, the following is a simple way to sum up the findings of this paper:
“A = A” signifies:
“(A ≠ A) = (A ≠ A)” and “(A = A) without B.”
Therefore:
“A = A” (always) signifies “ ‘(A ≠ A) = (A ≠ A)’ (without B).”
13. In conclusion, the fabric of reality is:
“ ‘A/(A-isn’t-A)’ is ‘A/(A-isn’t-A)’ (without B)”
Reality is irony.
Part Six: Overview
None.
.
.
.
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram and Facebook. Also, the photo was done by Frozen Glory Photography.
